Syed BAQAR HUSSAIN JAFRI vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN

1. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.-This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of a decision on a preliminary issue in a suit for recovery of Rs. 63,174.46 brought by the respondent-Bank against the petitioner. The preliminary issue raised was that Mr. Muhammad Kidwai, Superintendent, Peoples Credit Department, National Bank of Pakistan, who filed the suit on behalf of the Bank, was not legally authorized to do so. The issue was decided in the respondent's favour by the trial Court (Civil Judge, First Class, Lahore) and a revision petition brought against that order in the High Court has been dismissed by the learned Chief Justice.

2. The basis of Mr. Kidwai's authority to file the suit was a resolution passed by the Central Board of the National Bank dated the 4th of April 1963, which authorized the local board to execute the power-of-attorney in favour of Mr. Kidwai to file the suit in question. Thereafter, the power-of- attorney was duly executed on the 20th of September 1963, by two members and the Secretary of the Local Board, Lahore, after a resolution was adopted by the Local Board, Lahore, in this behalf, in compliance with the resolution of the Central Board. Under section 12 of the National Bank of Pakistan Ordinance, 1949, general superin--tendence and direction of the affairs and business of the National Bank vests in the Central Board which is authorized to exercise all powers and do all such acts and things as may be exercised or done by the Bank, other than those which are expressly directed or required to be done by the Bank in general meetings. Very clearly the appointment of an attorney to conduct Court cases is a matter which falls within the Board's routine duties to carry out the business of the Bank.

3. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appointment of an attorney to sue on behalf of the Bank amounts to delegation of powers which is not permitted by the Ordinance or the bye-laws made there under. As pointed out by the learned Chief Justice in his impugned order, the appointment of Mr. Kidwai as the Bank's Attorney for. The institution and conduct of the suit, does not amount to any delegation of its powers by the Board. The Board has merely appointed him a an agent for the conduct of the case and in that capacity Mr. Kidwai could take all necessary steps as an agent of the Bank under Order III, rule 2, of the Civil Procedure Code.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also referred us to Bye-Law No. 19 framed under section 32, of the Ordinance, for his contention that only an officer authorized by the Bank by a notification can sign documents connected with the business of the Bank and it is not shown that Mr. Kidwai was notified as such an officer in the official Gazette of Pakistan. We do not think that the a for said bye- law, in terms, envisages that the attorneys appointed for conduct of cases have also to be notified in the Gazette of Pakistan. In any case, even if this bye-law is applicable, the petitioner has failed to prove his contention that Mr. Kidwais, appointment was not notified. We hold that Mr. Kidwai's a competently constituted attorney of the Bank for the conduct of the case and that the preliminary issue was rightly decided against the petitioner.

5. The petition is dismissed.